The Great Global Warming Swindle

[rabcbroon]

well, we could change our way of life, and if there is no global warming, we would have done something positive anyway.

or, we could change our way of life, and if there is global warming, we would act against that.

btw: http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/

Well - we will indeed change our way of life.

......................

Question is: WHEN???

Some illnesses can be cured, if proper treatment will be done timely.

Yes thats true my friend - blindness can be cured if treated timely.

[rabcbroon]

[Birdman]

You cannot lose! Because if disaster gets real in 20+ years, how can you say gosh I was wrong, but I cannot make good for that, because we all have to die now.

[rabcbroon]

You cannot lose! Because if disaster gets real in 20+ years, how can you say gosh I was wrong, but I cannot make good for that, because we all have to die now.

I dont know anything for sure i only make observations. Climate change is possibly real - but man made, well you decide!

[shamus]

We humans produce 3% of the total annual global CO2 budget. This is endorsed by the IPCC and the US Dept of Energy. The rest is from natural sources. So even from these two figures our input would have minimal effect on climate.

[Birdman]

We humans produce 3% of the total annual global CO2 budget. This is endorsed by the IPCC and the US Dept of Energy. The rest is from natural sources. So even from these two figures our input would have minimal effect on climate.

loeee, I am so glad that an authority contributes to this discussion here.

[neverdie]

I actually enjoyed those videos, I have seen parts of them before but never sat thru the full 75 odd minutes.

I think a fair bit of brain washing has gone on with this global warming rubbish & the people that are claiming that humans are to blame for it don't seem to acknowledge that the earth has been heating up and cooling down for thousands of years.

To me there are much more serious global issues than this crap but for some reason the serious issues take the backseat whilst govt's push ahead with this type of rubbish. You can't deny some of the points raised in this video regarding the massive industries created by this global warming phenomenom.

Imagine if all the money wasted on this crap was actually redirected into the real world issues, like cruelty to animals and poverty, just to name 2.

Anyway, I'm sure some more brainwashed flamees will now stand up and give me a belting. In the meantime, Im gonna race out, start my V8, turn on some appliances and lights and try to increase my carbon footprint.....why, because I can

Edited November 25, 2009 by neverdie

[shamus]

Act on co2 - Says it all

[Birdman]

............................

Imagine if all the money wasted on this crap was actually redirected into the real world issues, like cruelty to animals and poverty, just to name 2.

.......................

Imagine if all the money wasted on this crap called war was actually redirected into the real world issues, like cruelty to animals and poverty, just to name 2.

[shamus]

............................

Imagine if all the money wasted on this crap was actually redirected into the real world issues, like cruelty to animals and poverty, just to name 2.

.......................

Imagine if all the money wasted on this crap called war was actually redirected into the real world issues, like cruelty to animals and poverty, just to name 2.

The money doesn't disappear it lines the pockets of profiteers who are more often than not the instigators of such invasions/wars if that's what you want to call them. Think Gore, Bush family

If it was properly allocated we would live in a world of equality, greed wouldn't flourish as freely. Who would make cheap clothes for the western markets when little Nasir doesn't have to sew to eat?

[shamus]

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

I know there are lots of em. A snipped from the last one I read:

I found the 99% of experts you were talking about:

Distribution for Endorsements --

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as

possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is

numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500

signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000

without.

Edited November 25, 2009 by shamus

[rabcbroon]

prominent scientist has called for criminal prosecutions to be brought against the UN affiliated scientists involved in what has been termed “ClimateGate”.

Australian geologist and long time opponent of anthropogenic global warming theory, Ian Plimer, has condemned what he describes as “alarmism underpinned by fraud”.

“This behavior is that of criminals and all the data from the UK Hadley Centre and the US GISS must now be rejected. These crooks perpetrated these crimes at the expense of the British and U.S. taxpayers.”

Plimer writes in a commentary piece.

“The same crooks control the IPCC and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world.” Plimer continues.

He points out that the emails intimate that figures were manipulated to cover up the medieval warming period, and continued global cooling, in addition to artificially inflated data to emphasize warming during the 20th century

[rabcbroon]

Sophie Freeman

Daily Mail

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Health Secretary Andy Burnham is urging the nation to stop eating meat in a bid to save the planet.

Speaking at the launch of a new report on how rising temperatures will affect the public, Mr Burnham said eating a more vegetarian diet would cut the impact of livestock on the climate – as well as improve health by lowering the amount of saturated fat consumed.

The Health Secretary is supporting calls for a 30 per cent reduction in the number of farm animals bred for meat.

[rabcbroon]

Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.

ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.

Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots.

Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve.

For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.

[rabcbroon]

Gore Flees in Panic from Chicago Book Signing

Printer-friendly versionSend to friend November 25, 2009 (LPAC)—Not since Henry Kissinger fled a team of LaRouche organizers, in the back of a delivery truck in New York City's Central Park in the early 1980s, has an obese fascist moved so fast to escape an angry crowd, as Al Gore did today in Chicago. Appearing at a bookstore in the downtown Loop, Gore was confronted by a team of demonstrators from a grass roots group called "We Are Change," as he was signing his latest fascist screed on the global warming swindle. Gore bolted from the bookstore, raced down an alley, jumped into a waiting car, and tried to speed off, with protesters chasing after him and banging on the car. Midwest LYM organizers, who were also on the scene to confront the global warming swindler, provided an eyewitness account of Fat Albert's flight of fear.

Make no mistake about it. This little encounter is typical of the kinds of things going on all over the country, as the fascists who brought you the near-destruction of the United States and an onrushing global Dark Age, are no longer walking the streets, smug in the belief that they are literally getting away with murder. The mass strike dynamic is playing out in thousands of ways, every day, and the recent revelations about the "smoking gun" emails from the East Anglia University global warming propaganda center, have made Al Gore's life a little more miserable.

As Percy Shelley wrote in "The Mask of Anarchy," "We are many, they are few."

[pjclark1]

Never forget man made climate change is NOT proven. It's a scientific theory. IPCC states as much.

An industry, taxes and caps have emerged from a theory.

That is a false argument and shows a lack of understanding of how science works. Evolution is also the "theory" but accepted as a valid theory by almost all scientists, except those who are fundamentalist Christians posing as real scientists. My understanding is that man made climate change is accepted by 99 percent of legitimate scientists (excluding oil industry hacks). Maybe you don't care about the future of our species, that's your choice, but don't hide behind false arguments.

I feel the urge to make a correction here (although threatening someone else's religion is often unwise)

How science works

One innovative chap has an idea then goes out to prove it, the other scientists call him names until the proof is so obvious that they give up (but only usually when they have died of old age). The scientist who had this idea will be ridiculed by the rest for most of his life.

How religion works

One chap comes up with an idea, then tells everyone else to 'believe' or go to hel_l for eternity. No evidence required. Anyone who disbelieves should be put to death. Those who are undecided are usually also put to death as heretics.

Of course religion only counts when a large enough percentage of the masses believe in it (99% would be really effective), good science is never achieved by consensus.

Climate change appears to fit the religion profile at the moment.

Evolution and God are only a theory, as a scientist I have to say both ideas are full of holes despite a large number of people believing in them (I prefer to go with aliens landed during the Cambrian Explosion, much more fun, just as much supporting evidence). So with climate change, only a theory until evidence has been presented.

[rabcbroon]

Never forget man made climate change is NOT proven. It's a scientific theory. IPCC states as much.

An industry, taxes and caps have emerged from a theory.

That is a false argument and shows a lack of understanding of how science works. Evolution is also the "theory" but accepted as a valid theory by almost all scientists, except those who are fundamentalist Christians posing as real scientists. My understanding is that man made climate change is accepted by 99 percent of legitimate scientists (excluding oil industry hacks). Maybe you don't care about the future of our species, that's your choice, but don't hide behind false arguments.

I feel the urge to make a correction here (although threatening someone else's religion is often unwise)

How science works

One innovative chap has an idea then goes out to prove it, the other scientists call him names until the proof is so obvious that they give up (but only usually when they have died of old age). The scientist who had this idea will be ridiculed by the rest for most of his life.

How religion works

One chap comes up with an idea, then tells everyone else to 'believe' or go to hel_l for eternity. No evidence required. Anyone who disbelieves should be put to death. Those who are undecided are usually also put to death as heretics.

Of course religion only counts when a large enough percentage of the masses believe in it (99% would be really effective), good science is never achieved by consensus.

Climate change appears to fit the religion profile at the moment.

Evolution and God are only a theory, as a scientist I have to say both ideas are full of holes despite a large number of people believing in them (I prefer to go with aliens landed during the Cambrian Explosion, much more fun, just as much supporting evidence). So with climate change, only a theory until evidence has been presented.

Point being - the evidence being presented has been falsified. The profane still ask why

[rabcbroon]

Marc Morano

Climate Depot

Fri Nov 27, 2009

UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, of the long range solar forecast group Weather Action, declared that the ClimateGate revelations have rendered man-made global warming fears “false.”

“The case is blown to smithereens and this whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and Copenhagen conference should be closed,” Corbyn said in a contentious on air television exchange with an environmental activist with Russia’s WWF. The

with Corbyn appeared on Moscow’s RT TV on November 25, 2009. The RT TV’s segment was titled “Heating Cheating.” See Full Video of Debate

.

“The world is cooling and has been cooling for 7 years and the leading scientists, so-called ’scientists’ have been trying to hide that evidence,” Corbyn said in reference to hacked emails showing top UN IPCC scientists apparently conspiring to manipulate temperature data and exclude scientific studies from peer-review that they did not agree with.

“We should end this anti-scientific nonsense now,” Corbyn said.

“The data, real data, over the last one thousand, ten thousand or million years, shows there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and world temperatures or climate extremes. Now we can see that actually the people in charge of data have been fiddling it, and they have been hiding the real decline in world temperatures in an attempt to keep their so called moral high ground,” Corbyn told host Bill Dod and Aleksey Kokorin, the Climate Program Coordinator for WWF in Russia.

The upcoming UN global warming summit in Copenhagen is a “complete waste of time,”

[rabcbroon]

repost

Edited November 28, 2009 by rabcbroon

[Orion76]

Haven't seen the video, but here's something for arguments sake:

There is a thesis out there which claims that particulate air pollution was blocking some of the heat of the sun since the industrial revolution (like it obviously does in Bangkok). Since mankind has become more environmentally friendly during the 70's, 80's and 90's and has significantly reduced such emissions and cleaned up the air the sun has been warming the planet, and reversed a global cooling into a global warming. Reducing CO2 emissions may speed up global warming.

Not my opinion, but food for thought nonetheless

[RPCVguy]

Many of the replies here fall into a category of short put-downs more suited among boys in grade school. Not a problem if the societal response is not possibly of such critical importance. But if humans are causing global climate change, ignoring our actions only serves to seal the doom of future generations.

Earlier today I provided links that are worth exploring, as I've posted in the discussion underway at:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Global-Warmi...13#entry3171413

I'll add here - since it seems more "on topic" here... some of the evidence that there is a change in global climate over the last century - see attached graph a taken from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

What is debatable, on a scientific level of analysis, is the cause of the warming. I've researched claims that sunspots are the cause, or the earth's variations in orbital configuration, etc., etc. but the data does not correlate. This is a serious topic, with economic, political and human survival implications. the least it deserves is serious discussion.

The best example of such scientific debate that I've seen - showing both sides with minimal name calling - can be found at http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-d...atures-ice.html

[ballzafire]

"...I've researched claims that sunspots are the cause,

or the earth's variations in orbital configuration, etc., etc.

but the data does not correlate

..."

And what is your educational background, if I may ask?

[RPCVguy]

"...I've researched claims that sunspots are the cause,

or the earth's variations in orbital configuration, etc., etc.

but the data does not correlate

..."

And what is your educational background, if I may ask?

BS Chemistry though computing turned into my forte, starting with Fortran in HS in the mid 60's.

Here is a current 3 page PDF paper by Peter Laut, who was a scientific advisor to the Danish Energy Agency. It's focus is the solar activity you questioned "The problem with the widely circulated, infamous figures of 1991 and 1998 ‐ which probably have been the most important persuaders ‐ is not a question of scientific uncertainty and differing opinion, but a case of manipulated data that have nothing to do with reality."

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uplo...-CHANGE-CPN.pdf see also his preceding paper at:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publi...monLaut2004.pdf

Attached is a graph found at:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/temp_vs_spots.gif showing sunspot activity over time against global temperature:

Though each trends upward, the variations diverge in slope frequently, especially since the mid 1980's.

The comment you quoted was exaggerated in context of this thread, written from the perspective of a separate discussion I was on in another blog... referencing alternating heating and cooling patterns over 60 year cycles. It was a sloppy comment, so thanks for requesting a better response.

The above papers are quite cerebral. Readers of this post may find the following link easier to follow - again on the same subject:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-solar-forcing/

[RPCVguy]

Additional info... I've done lab work for an oil company in their R&D labs, and 7 of 10 years with a petro-chemical company doing computer modeling and planning - before leaving for a stint in the software industry demoing the same software I'd grown skilled at. I believe corporations are wonderful in their ability to acquire resources to focus on solving problems, but they are detrimental to society because their core values are self serving profit generation... though corporate value statements may say otherwise. If a human exhibited the same ruthless behavior, we'd call them sociopaths.

When I see a legitimate debate on as significant an issue as global warming being bantered about like fans at a ball game, then I do get concerned, sometimes emotional. Too, my stake has risen now that I've not only got youngsters whom I've taught, but a new adopted family with children and grand-children. The system we are in is a finite system. The crude oil as a resource is being wasted as energy when it is the current easiest /dwindling resource for medicines, lubricants, coatings, and plastics. Plastics themselves are often used wastefully, instead of where they uniquely solve a problem.

How wastefully is this generation "consuming" planetary resources? That leads to two of my favorite videos that I'll recommend here and then sign off. Guess you got me started, but hope I also shed light on new ideas too.

http://www.storyofstuff.com/downloads.html From its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff in our lives affects communities at home and abroad, yet most of this is hidden from view. Story of Stuff is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world. It'll teach you something, it'll make you laugh, and it just may change the way you look at all the stuff in your life forever. The link above is to various movie download options. Google it to find access via various torrents too.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse This is a free course, and is formatted as a series of short You-Tube videos. Like the first lesson on compound growth, the lessons get progressively faster in the material presentation, but the whole course is under 3.5 hrs.

[basinboy]

Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.

ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.

Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots.

Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve.

For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.

Well you'll be pleased to hear that Tony (the mad monk) Abbott has got the gig. Many commentators are saying the events of the past week, culminating in todays election is potentially ruinous for the opposition Liberal Party, the climate sceptic view appeals to conservatives, but they already have those votes, The middle ground, they need to capture to regain power are not impressed, of course they are from the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots., but that's where most Aussies live.

Polling after the last election identified Abbott as a negative, now the party will be seen by most voters to be adopting a an equally unpopular stance against the environment.

[rabcbroon]

Crops under stress as temperatures fall

Christopher Booker � Telegraph.co.uk June 13, 2009

For the second time in little over a year, it looks as though the world may be heading for a serious food crisis, thanks to our old friend "climate change". In many parts of the world recently the weather has not been too brilliant for farmers. After a fearsomely cold winter, June brought heavy snowfall across large parts of western Canada and the northern states of the American Midwest. In Manitoba last week, it was -4�C. North Dakota had its first June snow for 60 years.

There was midsummer snow not just in Norway and the Cairngorms, but even in Saudi Arabia. At least in the southern hemisphere it is winter, but snowfalls in New Zealand and Australia have been abnormal. There have been frosts in Brazil, elsewhere in South America they have had prolonged droughts, while in China they have had to cope with abnormal rain and freak hailstorms, which in one province killed 20 people.

None of this has given much cheer to farmers. In Canada and northern America summer planting of corn and soybeans has been way behind schedule, with the prospect of reduced yields and lower quality. Grain stocks are predicted to be down 15 per cent next year. US reserves of soya � used in animal feed and in many processed foods � are expected to fall to a 32-year low.

In China, the world's largest wheat grower, they have been battling against the atrocious weather to bring in the harvest. (In one province they even fired chemical shells into the clouds to turn freezing hailstones into rain.) In north-west China drought has devastated crops with a plague of pests and blight. In countries such as Argentina and Brazil droughts have caused such havoc that a veteran US grain expert said last week: "In 43 years I've never seen anything like the decline we're looking at in South America."

In Europe, the weather has been a factor in well-below average predicted crop yields in eastern Europe and Ukraine. In Britain this year's oilseed rape crop is likely to be 30 per cent below its 2008 level. And although it may be too early to predict a repeat of last year's food shortage, which provoked riots from west Africa to Egypt and Yemen, it seems possible that world food stocks may next year again be under severe strain, threatening to repeat the steep rises which, in 2008, saw prices double what they had been two years before.

There are obviously various reasons for this concern as to whether the world can continue to feed itself, but one of them is undoubtedly the downturn in world temperatures, which has brought more cold and snow since 2007 than we have known for decades.

Three factors are vital to crops: the light and warmth of the sun, adequate rainfall and the carbon dioxide they need for photosynthesis. As we are constantly reminded, we still have plenty of that nasty, polluting CO2, which the politicians are so keen to get rid of. But there is not much they can do about the sunshine or the rainfall.

It is now more than 200 years since the great astronomer William Herschel observed a correlation between wheat prices and sunspots. When the latter were few in number, he noted, the climate turned colder and drier, crop yields fell and wheat prices rose. In the past two years, sunspot activity has dropped to its lowest point for a century. One of our biggest worries is that our politicians are so fixated on the idea that CO2 is causing global warming that most of them haven't noticed that the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling, with all the implications that has for whether we get enough to eat.

It is appropriate that another contributory factor to the world's food shortage should be the millions of acres of farmland now being switched from food crops to biofuels, to stop the world warming, Last year even the experts of the European Commission admitted that, to meet the EU's biofuel targets, we will eventually need almost all the food-growing land in Europe. But that didn't persuade them to change their policy. They would rather we starved than did that. And the EU, we must always remember, is now our government � the one most of us didn't vote for last week.

[rabcbroon]

A fantastic article written by Christopher Brooker of the London Telegraph exposing the climate change fraud rocketed to the very top of a Google News search for “global warming,” only to disappear hours later.

“What is going on at Google? I only ask because last night when I typed “Global Warming” into Google News the top item was

Christopher Booker’s superb analysis of the Climategate scandal,” writes James Delingpole.

“It’s still the most-read article of the Telegraph’s entire online operation – 430 comments and counting – yet mysteriously when you try the same search now it doesn’t even feature. Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me.”

Another blogger noted how other versions of the article appeared, but the original had been “disappeared,” despite the fact that other London Telegraph articles showed up as the top ranked result when entering their headline.

“That is using the search string: “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation” – which is the full headline of the piece. It shows up where it has been quoted in full by other sites, but of the Booker column there is no sign,”

writes Richard North.

In addition, searches for previous Christopher Brooker articles show up as top links – it’s only this particular article that has seemingly been targeted for censorship.

The same de-listing of the article is evident on other major search engine websites like Bing and Yahoo

[RPCVguy]

After striving to raise the level of discussion on this thread by providing some measurements and links to relevant scientific debate, it is disheartening to see the subsequent posts return immediately to 1) leading the debate by looking to see how this is playing out politically in Australia, and 2) what a journalist has to say about localized weather conditions, which though scattered have little bearing on the global mean temperature.

Since I was asked about my educational background, I'd like to do the same for rabcbroon, whose posts seem most determined to turn the discussion into merely a source of entertainment/ humor: What is your educational and career background? … and if it is scientific in nature, why are you highlighting Ian Pilmer's book as significant, when it was NOT peer reviewed prior to publication? By the way, did you review either video in my last post? Human population growth and consumer economics are not on sustainable tracks.

In support of my questions I am adding a link and a quote as posing valid challenges to the credibility of Prof. Ian Pilmer: taken from http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-...aven-and-earth/

"Ian's book contains over 2,000 references to the scientific literature, although the most cited journal by far is Energy and Environment. What the unsuspecting reader might not realise, however, is that a large number of the scientists he cites in footnotes would agree with the mainstream consensus — just a casual look turns up names like Broeker, Alley, Barnosky, Rampino, Lambeck, Royer, Berner, etc. (even Brook, heh, heh). It's all about the context, and Ian is not averse to implicit extrapolation…

Here are some notes on the numerous figures contained in the book

Fig 1 — Contrasts actual yearly temperatures to mean model projections (not individual, variable, simulation runs) — and doesn't include the data beyond the low point in January 2008. This is comparing apples and orange (illustrating a complete lack of understanding of stochastic modeling) and it's trimming to boot (elsewhere in the book, data up to early 2009 is included, so why not here?). Edit: Apparently this figure, originally created by John Christy, is scooting around the net.

Fig 8 — No citation, I have no idea where this weird temperature reconstruction of the last few thousand years comes from (it purports to show a systematic decline in temperature), but it isn't from the science literature.

Fig 11 — The lower figure is not Europe, as claimed, it is central England (see section "Central England is not the world!" in link).

Fig 15 — Sunspots and temp correlation — this is the UNCORRECTED version of the Friis-Christensen and Lassen study with mathematical errors retained (for that link, see section entitled "Temperature matches solar activity exactly!"). See also this BoM rebuttal. Was the corrected version rather too inconvenient?

He makes an argument at one point that volcanoes could be the cause of rising CO₂ (rather strangely, after trying to convince the audience that CO₂ doesn't change climate — one wonders why he then bothers about volcanoes, since this trace gas is apparently unimportant anyway). He's claimed this before, but doesn't seem to want to listen to the facts." … with many more citations, leading to…

"—————————————

Update: Tim Lambert continues the page-by-page debunking here: The science is missing from Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth"

—————————————

The launch ended with a statement of conviction from the master of ceremonies that this book will become a classic, alongside the other great works of modern science. Well, it may well be held up as an example for the future. An example of just how deluded and misrepresentative the psuedo-sceptical war against science really was in the first decade of the 21st century."

… leading to a great deal of mostly relevant comments pro and con regarding AGW.

[rabcbroon]

After striving to raise the level of discussion on this thread by providing some measurements and links to relevant scientific debate, it is disheartening to see the subsequent posts return immediately to 1) leading the debate by looking to see how this is playing out politically in Australia, and 2) what a journalist has to say about localized weather conditions, which though scattered have little bearing on the global mean temperature.

Since I was asked about my educational background, I'd like to do the same for rabcbroon, whose posts seem most determined to turn the discussion into merely a source of entertainment/ humor: What is your educational and career background? … and if it is scientific in nature, why are you highlighting Ian Pilmer's book as significant, when it was NOT peer reviewed prior to publication? By the way, did you review either video in my last post? Human population growth and consumer economics are not on sustainable tracks.

In support of my questions I am adding a link and a quote as posing valid challenges to the credibility of Prof. Ian Pilmer: taken from http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-...aven-and-earth/

"Ian's book contains over 2,000 references to the scientific literature, although the most cited journal by far is Energy and Environment. What the unsuspecting reader might not realise, however, is that a large number of the scientists he cites in footnotes would agree with the mainstream consensus — just a casual look turns up names like Broeker, Alley, Barnosky, Rampino, Lambeck, Royer, Berner, etc. (even Brook, heh, heh). It's all about the context, and Ian is not averse to implicit extrapolation…

Here are some notes on the numerous figures contained in the book

Fig 1 — Contrasts actual yearly temperatures to mean model projections (not individual, variable, simulation runs) — and doesn't include the data beyond the low point in January 2008. This is comparing apples and orange (illustrating a complete lack of understanding of stochastic modeling) and it's trimming to boot (elsewhere in the book, data up to early 2009 is included, so why not here?). Edit: Apparently this figure, originally created by John Christy, is scooting around the net.

Fig 8 — No citation, I have no idea where this weird temperature reconstruction of the last few thousand years comes from (it purports to show a systematic decline in temperature), but it isn't from the science literature.

Fig 11 — The lower figure is not Europe, as claimed, it is central England (see section "Central England is not the world!" in link).

Fig 15 — Sunspots and temp correlation — this is the UNCORRECTED version of the Friis-Christensen and Lassen study with mathematical errors retained (for that link, see section entitled "Temperature matches solar activity exactly!"). See also this BoM rebuttal. Was the corrected version rather too inconvenient?

He makes an argument at one point that volcanoes could be the cause of rising CO₂ (rather strangely, after trying to convince the audience that CO₂ doesn't change climate — one wonders why he then bothers about volcanoes, since this trace gas is apparently unimportant anyway). He's claimed this before, but doesn't seem to want to listen to the facts." … with many more citations, leading to…

"—————————————

Update: Tim Lambert continues the page-by-page debunking here: The science is missing from Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth"

—————————————

The launch ended with a statement of conviction from the master of ceremonies that this book will become a classic, alongside the other great works of modern science. Well, it may well be held up as an example for the future. An example of just how deluded and misrepresentative the psuedo-sceptical war against science really was in the first decade of the 21st century."

… leading to a great deal of mostly relevant comments pro and con regarding AGW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429xoDtqS-A...player_embedded

My posts are in no way an attempt to make light of this global fraud. My educational background is simply representative of the masses whom have been recently informed of this fraud. The scam has been exposed and your feeble cry of 'peer Review' means little.

According to your opinion only those who have been indoctrinated with this false science should have an opinion. (Peer review blah blah blah).

Please take a few minutes to watch the video and just see how many times 'Peer review' is blurted out.

Edited December 1, 2009 by rabcbroon

[RPCVguy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429xoDtqS-A...player_embedded

My posts are in no way an attempt to make light of this global fraud. My educational background is simply representative of the masses whom have been recently informed of this fraud. The scam has been exposed and your feeble cry of 'peer Review' means little.

According to your opinion only those who have been indoctrinated with this false science should have an opinion. (Peer review blah blah blah).

Please take a few minutes to watch the video and just see how many times 'Peer review' is blurted out.

Well, you've ducked the question of education, but posted a link to FOX News. The problem being that even the management of FOX news has said that the programming that appears in prime time is opinion journalism, not news. The Ruppert Murdock method of journalism is to key up a story in one segment, then follow up in subsequent segments with the "news" that such-and-such is being discussed, ramping the volume with each cycle. Do you and other viewers of such programming have opinions – sure, but are they reasonable? Can it affect votes? - sure. Will poor science fix whatever is happening to the environment? - not one iota.

IMO "Peer Review" is important because if you want to understand the workings of a complex issue, it is generally best to seek help from those who've made that field of knowledge significant enough to study the complexities, and also to learn the tools (concepts, equations, etc. ) to give an accurate assessment.

If you truly don't value peer reviews, then you'd have no issue in asking any cobbler to fix your new car, or seeking medical advice from an accountant to evaluate why you've been vomiting for several days- with a fever. Such behavior would be absurd, but comparable to what you are saying here.

About the segment you linked to, I watched it fully. Senator Inhofe is recognized as a leading advocate of the big business agenda. Cavuto seeks ratings by editing for controversy while following the FOX agenda. Ed Begley at least was honest enough to say "wait till the facts are in" as to the emails in question.

Again, have you watched either of the two video links I posted? Do you really have room to hear other ideas? For brevity on the "Crash Course" try going quickly to chapter 18, but ideally take the whole course.